Talk:Colorado/Highway Classification

Really nice work. I have a few comments.

What about tracks? We have more tracks, and more miles of tracks in the state than any other type of highway except residential. The wiki page is adequate, but perhaps should be mentioned: highway=track. In fact it has been standard practice here to label any 4wd road as a track. This perhaps is contrary to the wiki, but perhaps we should put it in writing and accept it.

In regards to the CO Functional Classification, You said that Minor Arterials could be trunk. Are there any in your table? It could make for a cleaner distinction if Major Arterials were trunk, and Minor Arterials were Primary.

I wonder if it's worth mentioning this resource: https://www.fs.fed.us/ivm/ . They distinguish between gravel roads suitable for passenger cars, dirt roads suitable for passenger cars, and roads not maintained for passenger cars. In most cases the latter should be 'track', and the others should be unclassified (maybe a few tertiary).

In regards to highway=unclassified, "do not provide through connectivity to the larger road network". Perhaps I'm misinterpreting 'through connectivity', but many backroads in the state can get you from point A to B, but they are not the route someone would take unless they are looking for a scenic, or challenging backroad. Perhaps: 'do not provide the primary through connectivity... ) .These are usually tagged as unclassified or track. Examples: Marshall Pass Rd (unclassified), Engineer Pass Road (4WD, track), Cinnamon Pass Road (4wd, track).

You use the term 'unstriped' several times. I think in most of these cases 'unstriped or unpaved' would be appropriate. One example of an unpaved tertiary road is Kebler Pass Road. IMO it is appropriately tagged. Do we want to say that anything tertiary or above is suitable for passenger cars? --Bradrh (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for all the good comments! Finally got some time to go through and implement changes. I added a section on tracks as you recommended, it doesn't state much new, though I made a point to link to both the current and draft track language since the draft language implements a lot of good changes (in my opinion) that relate to how CO would use track roads. I also made it clear that track shouldn't be used for roads serving residences or businesses, even if they are of double-track construction.

Agreed as well on unclassified - you can probably patch together a through route from anything, but it wouldn't be considered the normal way to get somewhere. Clarifying language added. I also made it clear that tertiary and below could all be unpaved depending on their importance to the road network.

I also agree that tagging something as Tertiary or above (Minor Collector or above) implies that any normal passenger car could handle it. There are some high-clearance residential roads (Nelson Rd in Ward comes to mind), and certainly tracks are often 4WD.

Let me know if you have any other thoughts, or feel free to directly make some additions if you have examples or links that would add clarity.

--Phidauex (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Currently US 40 is listed as a potential trunk between the Vernal and the I-70 interchange at Empire. I'm wondering if, between Kremmling and I-70, it would be better to classify CO 9 as trunk instead. US 40 goes over Berthoud Pass, which looks quite challenging, but travelers that stay on I-70 to Silverthorne take advantage of the tunnel to cross the mountains. Aweech (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

You list US36 from Estes Park to Longmont (I think that should be Boulder, US36 doesn't go to Longmont) as questionable as highway=trunk because US34 is trunk, but the two really go to two different population centers US36 goes to Boulder, and US34 goes to Loveland/Fort Collins and eventually Greeley. In any event, US36 seems to be constructed to a little higher standard than US34, probably because of the nature of the topography they go through in the mountains (Big Thompson Canyon is narrower generally). --Tekim (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Business spurs in Greeley

I not noted the business spur of US34 (north half) through Greeley was demoted to primary which probably makes sense. I am suspecting that the small business spur of US85 that goes through Garden City likewise should be demoted earlier so the trunk designation only highlights the US34 and US85 intersection, but not the in-city segment?

In my view, generally if you have a US Route entering a city tagged as highway=trunk, and the same route number exiting the city, also tagged highway=trunk, then the part inside the city should be tagged as trunk too. The reason is that these are through routes between population centers, and a through traveler would generally want to stay on that route within the city.--Tekim (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, the designated US85 and US34 segments that currently go through the city should indeed be/remain Trunk. However I was wondering about the short 1 mile "Business 85" segment that's partly https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/99825075 , currently marked as Trunk that goes through Garden City and ends on 8th Avenue (which is Primary). My posture is that this should be also down to primary as nobody should be using this road for through traffic. I suspect 8th Avenue was the old US85 way back when, but now used for local businesses only, and not meant for traversing north-south through Garden City and Greeley, at least not any longer. --Gpserror (talk) 03:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I see what you mean. In the case you cite, I agree with you, that should not be highway=trunk. Looks like someone is tagging based on physical characteristics rather than function. If that route was the primary way into the city, if it ended at the center of the city, and if there were no major destination beyond it, then maybe it could be trunk. However, that is not the case here.--Tekim (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

DEN airport terminal access lanes

Speaking of classifying roads, I find it both sort of disturbing and somewhat reasonable that the dropoff/pickup lanes around Jeppesen Terminal (DEN) to suddenly drop from Motorway to Secondary when it goes around and then goes back to Motorway. Not sure if anyone feels this is strange or not but RFC is there perhaps a better way to tag this? --Gpserror (talk) 02:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

My thoughts

User:Phidauex, I'm the one who originally objected to the US 550 as trunk classification. Sorry it's taken me so long to comment on this guideline, I got distracted by some other projects :) Anyways, thought I'd swing by to give my thoughts on all the proposed trunk roads listed. There's only a few that I'd have any disagreement with.

Trunks that I would 100% agree on with the guideline that should be trunk:

• US 40/CO 9: UT ↔ Kremmling ↔ Silverthorne
• US 287: WY ↔ Longmont
• US 34: Estes Park ↔ KS (with the exception of the part that closely-parallels I-76
• US 36/CO 66: Estes Park ↔ Longmont ↔ I-25 (I assume this is what is meant in the guideline where it just states US 36 from Estes Park to Longmont)
• CO 82: Glenwood Springs ↔ Aspen
• US 50: Grand Junction ↔ KS
• US 285/CO 17: Denver ↔ NM (using CO 17 cutoff)
• US 550: Durango ↔ NM
• US 160: Durango ↔ Walsenburg
• US 491: Cortez ↔ UT
• US 287: Limon ↔ OK
• US 24: Colorado Springs ↔ Limon

Routes where I might disagree:

• CO 13: WY ↔ Rifle: One of the only suitable long-distance routes in a large area of CO, but doesn't really connect any major regional destinations. I guess it connects Grand Junction to the far-away Casper WY and the even-farther-away Billings MT, but is this an important enough connection to be considered trunk? Especially north of US 40 the traffic counts are very low compared to a typical trunk route.
• CO 82: Aspen ↔ US 24: Definitely not trunk, considering it's a seasonal road that is wholly unsuited to regional travel (I see in the notes that it's stated that it probably shouldn't be upgraded, but for completeness I'm still listing it here since it's in the trunk table).
• US 24: Minturn ↔ US 285: Although this route has a good amount of traffic, it doesn't really connect anything of note. I don't think Leadville is big enough that it should be considered an important regional destination, and from Denver, Grand Junction, Colorado Springs, or other large cities there's always a better route to take to other regional centers. Admittedly the traffic counts are somewhat high, but I'd bet this is mostly recreational traffic. However, if it is decided that this should be trunk, I think it makes more sense to have CO 91 north of Leadville instead of US 24 be trunk: it has more traffic, has fewer twists and turns, and is the better route to Denver.
• US 550: Montrose ↔ Durango: Connection-wise this might make the threshold for trunk since it's the shortest route between Durango and Montrose/Grand Junction. However, the road is incredibly windy and slow-going, and I'm not sure it would qualify as the best route between these places. Although US 460 ↔ US 491 ↔ US 191 ↔ I-70 is longer than US 550 ↔ US 50 to get between Durango and Grand Junction, it's a much-higher-quality road and has higher traffic. This is one of those cases where I simply think that the road quality is enough to keep the road from being trunk, even though it might qualify based on importance.
• US 40/385: Kit Carson ↔ Cheyenne Wells ↔ Julesburg: I don't see this as connecting any important regional centers, and the traffic counts are very low on this route. None of these towns are big enough that they'd need to be served by a trunk route in this very desolate area of the country.
• CO 71: Limon ↔ WY: Exact same justification as US 385 above. However, this one's towns are slightly bigger than those on US 385, and I think it has a slightly stronger argument for trunk. Don't think it quite passes the cutoff though.
• CO 145/62 Cortez ↔ Telluride ↔ Ridgeway: Is Telluride important enough that it should be considered a regional destination? I wouldn't think so myself. But it also is a better-quality route than US 550 to get to Montrose from the south, and Montrose is certainly big enough to be a regional destination. I could see the justification either way.

Other posible trunk roads:

• US 287: Longmont ↔ US 36: Should the section of US 287 south of Longmont to US 36 also be upgraded to match the section to the north? I'm not sure. It's part of the fastest non-toll route from the northwestern Denver metro to Longmont. But it's not part of the Boulder ↔ Longmont ↔ Loveland ↔ Fort Collins route like the part north of Longmont.
• US 36: CO 66 ↔ Boulder: This is the route from Boulder (and the northwestern Denver metro) to Estes Park. I'd probably think that this should be trunk too, since it's a separate connection than the CO 66 route that Longmont or the rest of Denver traffic takes.
• CO 115: Colorado Springs ↔ US 50: Best route out of Colorado Springs to the west. Faster route than US 24 to most of the various places out there.
• US 160: Durango ↔ AZ: Forms part of the major E/W corridor of southern CO. Is this an oversight that it wasn't included? I think it's a blatantly obvious trunk.
• US 491: NM ↔ Cortez: Another oversight omission? Part of the most important N/S corridor in the area.
• Front range connecting routes:
  • CO 157/CO 119: Boulder ↔ Longmont ↔ I-25: The main route from Denver to Longmont, and Boulder to Longmont.
  • US 85: WY ↔ Greeley ↔ I-76: Main route between Cheyenne and Greeley, and Greeley and Denver. CR 49 is an alternate route between Greeley and Denver that can sometimes be faster, but I think it's pretty clear that US 85 is the better route. CR 49 between US 34 and I-76 should definitely be primary I'd say though.
  • CO 14: US 287 ↔ I-25: Main route into northern Fort Collins, and also part of the important SLC ↔ Denver route. Don't think this should be trunk east of I-25 though; US 34 probably serves as the better route to Greeley.
  • Harmony Road (CR 38): US 287 ↔ I-25: Main route into southern Fort Collins. I think this serves a distinct connection from the CO 14 connection above and also meets the threshold for trunk.
  • CO 52: I-25 to I-76: The best route to Longmont from points east on I-76. Distinct enough from US 34 to warrant trunk as well? I think so, but I could see how others could disagree.

Obviously my word isn't the final say :) But figured I should provide my thoughts since I gave interest before. Oregonian3 (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Nebraska mapper here. Continuing the discussion from https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/126673901, I would like to know the justification for US 34 being trunk east of Ft Collins, as that will affect our discussions on our end. I've driven this route several times and I am not sure about this one. It's not great road quality, there are not any major destinations along the route (the original edit had the trunk terminating at Haigler), minimal traffic, and McCook (the largest population if it extended to the next trunk road to keep the network intact) will typically use US 36 to reach Denver as it is better quality and less towns to pass through. (Oh, and US 34 does not enter Kansas. That's the Nebraska border!) I'm also not totally sold on US 6/I 76 Bus being trunk between Sterling and Brush, as the interstate runs very close along there and the only major destination is Sterling itself. --Stretch Longfellow (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I definitely would not support the section of US 6 paralleling I-76 being trunk. I think the only such parallel road in CO that has an argument for trunk is US 6 paralleling I-70 over Loveland Pass, since hazardous cargo is prohibited on I-70 through the tunnel.

And I'm quite familiar with the mountainous areas of CO, but much less familiar with the parts east of the Front Range. Looking at traffic count data, that section of US 34 has by far the highest traffic counts of any non-freeway in northeastern CO. But looking at it now it doesn't look like it connects anything beyond a bunch of small towns, so I think you're totally right that it would make sense for it to be primary rather than trunk. And looking at a Nebraska/Kansas map, I really don't see a reason for any non-interstate routes crossing the eastern CO border except for US 50 to be trunk. Unless we consider McCook to Denver to be an important-enough connection?

Oregonian3 (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Great points there. I just went in and changed both segments to primary. There is loads of traffic on US 34 in Colorado as a whole, being one of the best connectors between Northern Colorado and the High Plains. There aren't many cities on the route east of I-76, so that should totally be primary. The Denver–McCook traffic isn't super high, as it has been since the mid-50's. Keep the Estes–Wiggins section of the highway as trunk for now (unless a solid argument for the opposite emerges).

As for US 6, I guess I can see it being a trunk route, as it is a business route of an interstate (I-76). The overall highway classification page says that all Interstate business routes should be trunk or higher. I don't totally agree with this statement, as business routes don't see nearly as much traffic as the thru routes. Therefore, since there is like zero traffic on the road in Logan County, and it is less than 5 miles from the Interstate, it should be primary. NocoRoads 05:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Urban/Suburban/Town Roads & CDOT Classification

Some observations on current use & comparing to CDOT GIS

• • CDOT Principle Arterials OSM has mapped as trunk or primary
  • Minor Arterials, OSM has some properly mapped as trunk. Usually primary or secondary. Usually secondary in urban or town areas
  • Major Collector: Secondary or Tertiary. Usually Tertiary in city/town, often residential
  • Minor Collector: Tertiary or Unclassified. Many of these are unpaved. The CDOT GIS doesn't show any minor collectors in urban areas.
  • We don't seem to have any unclassified roads in urban areas. My interpretation of the wiki page such as this: "Being side road linking developments into more major roads" is that some local roads that connect to many residential roads should use this tag. I don't plan on changing anything in the cities, but that's kind of how I've been tagging things in the rural/mtn areas.
  • Bottom line is that the mapping between CDOT functional class and OSM is kind of weak.

--Bradrh (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)